Counter Apologetics

Returning guest John Buck joins me to debate universalism, eternal conscious torment, and other topics related to hell and the afterlife.

My Playlist on Hell

Linktree

We wrap up our series on the moral argument for theism, summarize several problems with the argument famously associated with William Lane Craig, and discuss two other moral arguments for God that are not abysmal failures like the standard moral argument.

Linktree

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And morality.

The standard moral argument popularized by William Lane Craig and others goes as follows:

(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. 

(2) Objective moral values do exist. 

(3) Therefore, God exists. 

Today, we cast some doubt on the idea that morality is objective only if God exists. We also define some crucial terms, refute a few apologetic canards, and discuss a few ways in which apologists have misrepresented the field of metaethics and failed the audiences that rely on them.

Here’s the overview of the whole moral argument series. Today, in part one, we’ll be covering sections (1)-(5).

(1) Introduction

(2) Defining Terms

(3) Apologetics vs. Metaethics

(4) “Humans are just animals” (Moral agents vs. patients)

(5) The Moral Law Giver

(6) Euthyphro & Intrinsic Value

(7) Hume’s Law

(8) Why Obey God?

(9) Groundless Morals

(10) Two Classes of Moral Realism

(11) God Cannot Provide the Basis for Objective Morality

(12) Good Moral Arguments

(13) What’s wrong with the moral argument?

A few resources mentioned in this episode:

Majesty of Reason – Moral Realism | Dr. Michael Huemer & Dr. Don Loeb

Is God Necessary for Morality? | William Lane Craig & Shelly Kagan

Moral Objectivity Without God | Russ Shafer-Landau

Support the Show

Linktree

Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently announced her conversion to Christianity. But has she only adopted a form of cultural Christianity? I examine her reasons for becoming a Christian and draw some parallels between Ayaan and another political convert: Andrew Tate.

I think her reasons for adopting Christianity are quite clearly explicated, even though some Christians have been trying very hard to ignore them. She argues that Christianity can sustain the liberal values of the Enlightenment that she cherishes so deeply. Those values are under attack, she says, from Islam, Russia, China, and woke ideology. Every purely secular strategy tried in response has been insufficient. Christianity, on the other hand, could function as a far more effective weapon against her political enemies in this existential clash. But why does it matter that the west prevails over its cultural and geopolitical foes? Christianity can help with that, too – not just on a civilizational level, but individually as well. It’s the antidote to nihilism, the heart of liberalism, a panacea for wokeness and illiberalism. These considerations together lead her to adopt Christianity, even if she doesn’t think it’s actually true.

Maybe in the future, she’ll affirm something more than cultural Christianity. Until then, I’m honestly inclined to see Ayaan’s “conversion” as further vindication of the death of God: even the converts don’t really believe anymore. A good deal of true believers are apparently so desperate for a morale boost, they’re willing to look past that.

Ayaan’s guiding light is liberalism, the Enlightenment, and western civilization. She is a positively zealous believer in what the west represents to her, and this is absolutely crucial to understanding her conversion to Christianity. She may not believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus, but she believes in western civilization. She believes this is the best way – perhaps the only way – to save it from withering.

Watch this episode on YouTube 

Linktree

I recently asked for your questions, and I posted my responses on YouTube here. We touch on compatibilism, NDEs, aliens, euthanasia, abortion, death anxiety as an atheist, idealism, incest, Islam, Mormonism, subjectivism, psychophysical harmony, and more. (For those listening via podcast, I left the introduction in to preserve the timestamps for those who want to skip around to different sections.)

00:00 Intro

Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen

I’m joined by Andrew Hronich, author of Once Loved, Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis. We discuss universal reconciliation, eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, and much else! 

Watch the interview here

Linktree

Here’s my appearance on Adherent Apologetics to talk about the recent series of Counter Apologetics episodes on epistemology.

Where New Atheist Epistemology Goes (Very) Wrong | @EmersonGreen | Ep. #259 

5 Mistakes Atheists Make About Epistemology 

4 Things I Learned About Epistemology

Epistemology playlist on YouTube

Linktree 

Alex Strasser (Protestant) and John Buck (Catholic) debate the merits of finite theism, the view that God is limited in power. Theistic finitism is less vulnerable to the problem of evil than perfect being theism, but are there other trade-offs that make the notion of a finite God less defensible overall?

John is defending the view that strong versions of omnipotence avoid problems of vagueness, arbitrariness, ad hocness, lack of predictive power, and complexity that limited models of God suffer from. John also thinks that a new problem of evil arises that is particular only to limited views of God.

Alex will give a cosmological argument and fine-tuning argument for finite theism, and further argue that omni-theism is not a fruitful research program due to serious issues with coherence and the analysis of omni-properties. Theistic finitism is rarely discussed in the philosophy of religion, and Alex wants to invite us to take finite theism more seriously and to investigate it carefully.

Debate: Is God Finite?

Previous limited god debate

Linktree